The Arkansaw traveler., 1887-06-18
HOWELLS ON CRITICS.
[New Orleans Times. Democrat. l

1 In the June number of Hdrpe1'S Magazine, the ge n ral tone of theartf- cles ill the "Edit $ Study" indicate that MT. Howells has been badly worsted in his long bout with the eastern critics. He acknowledges hav- ing been hurt, complains of the "ruf- fianly tone" assumed by some of his antagonists; and his retorts, although occasionally sharp-as where he de- scribes the critics relation to litera- ture as that of the caterpillar or aphis to vegetation-On the whole take the form of protest against further ill., treatment of himself. He closes the series of little articles by an argument upon the futility of all criticism, ill which he says that ''even with the youngest and weakest author criticism is quite powerless against his will to do his own work in his own way; and if this be the case in the green wood, how much more in the dry!" He also observes that most authors of ability soon discover that the critic cannot teach them anything, although they can hurt occasionally;-and~they soon cease to read reviews altogether.
 Such a plea as Mir. Howells has made in this case would create sym pathy for anyone who had been always critically amiable. But MT. Towels has not always been so While he remained the powerful nov elist only he received more need of unadulterated praise than most living writers can boast of. Even those crit ics who least liked his books, could understand the vivid force which made others like them. It was only when he put himself forward as a critic of the work of others that he excited hostility; and he must have had no conception at that time of the truth he now utters about the average critic: ''It is too largely his supersti- tiOn that because he likes a thing it is good, and because he dislikes thing it is bad; the reverse is quite possibly the case" In the Stedman contro- versy, when he denied the possibility of genius, and in variety of subse- quent articles in which he took rather arrogant issue with the ideas of other writers and the purposes of other schools of art-ridiculing idealism, and condemning romanticism in all shapes and forms-he exhibited an in- tolerance of opinion which both sur prised and provoked the literary world. This intolerance has been a distinguished trait of realism, both at home and abroad; it revealed itself to a colossal degree in the critical work of "Zola." In all cases it is a senti- ment certain to arouse right vigor- ous measure of enmity, and to leave its possessor feeling much less self -satis- faction at the end of his campaign than at the beginning. MT. Ho wells now lays down the duty of critics as that of simply classifying and ana- lyzing the fruits of the human mind," not praising or blaming them. But the very reason that MT. Howells is now feeling the stings of very severe criticism, is that he himself violated all those principles of criticism he would now have the rest of the world obey. And if all criticism be futile, incapable of influencing the work of an author, and of course much more incapable of changing the literary tendency of an era, one cannot help wondering that MT. Howells, believ- ing all these things, should have put himself forward as the most deter mined enemy of idealism, and as the champion of a new school Nearly all his work in the "Editor's Study" has been of an unmistakably aggressive character; and as he consistently as- sailed the principles and beliefs of a host of literary workers, it was but natural they should repay him in kind. Even with Harpe,'s Magazine for a mouthpiece, the struggle was scarcely equal, for Mir. Howells, though great novelist, proved himself a clumsy literary conversationalist; and he seems to have cut himself occasion ally in attempting to thrust and parry. Moreover, his assailants have been too many for him. Now that he has declared his belief in the useless ness of all criticism, perhaps he will try to practice that which he breaches regarding the duty of the critic, viz: "that his office is to ascertain facts and traits of literature, not to denounce them." This statement itself may be open to criticism, but it seems to show that the critic who wrote it has been converted from his former proclivity to aggressiveness.